WritersBeat.com
 

Go Back   WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > The Intellectual Table

The Intellectual Table Discussions on political topics, social issues, current affairs, etc.


Red Pill Collection

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #61  
Old 02-27-2018, 05:09 AM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,841
Thanks: 396
Thanks 1,044
Default


Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post


The headline is inflammatory, but I think the point of this womenís research and conclusions are spot on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to brianpatrick For This Useful Post:
PickleBottom (02-27-2018)
  #62  
Old 02-27-2018, 05:33 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,908
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by brianpatrick View Post
The headline is inflammatory, but I think the point of this womenís research and conclusions are spot on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
The title is shock value sure. But I think it's reprehensible to try and shoehorn race into this.

Lenders discern, rightly, using a batch of variables. It's not race related, it's risk related. I'm sure we wouldn't encourage them to throw the risk factor to the wind -- we've done that before, it fucked the world.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 02-27-2018, 11:41 AM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
The title is shock value sure. But I think it's reprehensible to try and shoehorn race into this.

Lenders discern, rightly, using a batch of variables. It's not race related, it's risk related. I'm sure we wouldn't encourage them to throw the risk factor to the wind -- we've done that before, it fucked the world.
Unfortunately it is racist because society is racist (and much more) so big data analysis will reflect this, and all the outcome does is reinforces the racism.

Secondly big data analysis is usually (in insurance, banks etc) only performed for people to make heaps of money, it does not exist to improve society.
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 02-27-2018, 12:54 PM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,908
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by PickleBottom View Post
Unfortunately it is racist because society is racist (and much more) so big data analysis will reflect this, and all the outcome does is reinforces the racism.

Secondly big data analysis is usually (in insurance, banks etc) only performed for people to make heaps of money, it does not exist to improve society.
Don't do this to me PB

Alright fine, maths is racist.

But seriously the way I see it the algorithm doesn't know about racism. It's just making calculations based on likelihood and probability for reasons which are absolutely imperative for the lender to be successful.

Ultimately -- earn good money, and make good on your repayments, the algorithm will then look favourably upon you, regardless of your skin colour.

And yeah lenders are there to make money, but the idea that borrowing and lending doesn't benefit society doesn't make a great deal of sense. Once the propensity to lend decreases we're all in trouble.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 02-27-2018, 04:42 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,841
Thanks: 396
Thanks 1,044
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
Don't do this to me PB

Alright fine, maths is racist.

But seriously the way I see it the algorithm doesn't know about racism. It's just making calculations based on likelihood and probability for reasons which are absolutely imperative for the lender to be successful.

Ultimately -- earn good money, and make good on your repayments, the algorithm will then look favourably upon you, regardless of your skin colour.

And yeah lenders are there to make money, but the idea that borrowing and lending doesn't benefit society doesn't make a great deal of sense. Once the propensity to lend decreases we're all in trouble.


No, big data does not exist as an essential tool for lenders to do their work. Itís a tool to maximize profits. My auto insurance rates are calculated in part by my zip code. This is so some flunky doesnít have to be paid to look at my paperwork manuallyósaves the company costs and allows more profit for the same work. I happen to live in one of the cheapest zip codes in the greater Phoenix area, so itís good for me. But people that live in a city only several miles from me pay almost 15% more. Has nothing to do with any particular individuals actual record (the zip code part). I suspect it has to do in part because the next city over has a considerably larger poor population. There are a lot more uninsured drivers (I suspect) than in my city so the likelihood of crashing into someone or being crashed into by a driver with no financial means to pay factor in. This sets up a self-feeding cycle which eventually leads to more poor or uninsured drivers, and on, and on.

I definitely donít believe math is racist. Outcome does not prove causation. But it ends up skewing to look like racism. To be honest, I donít personally give much of a Fuck about the overall ďproblemĒ of ďracism.Ē Iím not racist, and have long ago put that argument to bed. I donít have any answers for how to solve the problem that some people ARE racists, and I donít have any experience with being a victim of racism.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 02-27-2018, 11:06 PM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,908
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by brianpatrick View Post
No, big data does not exist as an essential tool for lenders to do their work. It’s a tool to maximize profits. My auto insurance rates are calculated in part by my zip code. This is so some flunky doesn’t have to be paid to look at my paperwork manually—saves the company costs and allows more profit for the same work. I happen to live in one of the cheapest zip codes in the greater Phoenix area, so it’s good for me. But people that live in a city only several miles from me pay almost 15% more. Has nothing to do with any particular individuals actual record (the zip code part). I suspect it has to do in part because the next city over has a considerably larger poor population. There are a lot more uninsured drivers (I suspect) than in my city so the likelihood of crashing into someone or being crashed into by a driver with no financial means to pay factor in. This sets up a self-feeding cycle which eventually leads to more poor or uninsured drivers, and on, and on.

I definitely don’t believe math is racist. Outcome does not prove causation. But it ends up skewing to look like racism. To be honest, I don’t personally give much of a Fuck about the overall “problem” of “racism.” I’m not racist, and have long ago put that argument to bed. I don’t have any answers for how to solve the problem that some people ARE racists, and I don’t have any experience with being a victim of racism.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Maximising profits is their job. Maximising profits, and efficiently evaluating the potential risk of borrower's defaulting so as to minimise the amount of bad debt held. That's their job and yes in order to compete well in that market I can't see how it's not essential. The alternative would be as you say to treat people as individuals and sure some lenders out there might still have manual processes. But if you relied solely on manual processes you're just a) not going to be efficient and b) going to have to employ people with certain skills which you otherwise wouldn't have to. You'll probably be forced to become one of those lenders who targets people who've been refused elsewhere, and those guys always charge even higher interest rates anyway.

OK so part of your credit check is affected by where you live. More black people live in poor neighbourhoods and therefore more black people by default will have poorer credit scores. Does this mean the white people living in those areas don't suffer the same prejudice? Or that a black family living in a rich predominantly white neighbourhood will still pay higher interest rates? It's discrimatory on a class and income basis.

It's like when I was a teenager my car insurance was higher than my parents. That's ageist right... But no-one actually says that because we all know it makes perfect sense from a risk analysis point of view. We can't expect lenders to be any different.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.

Last edited by JohnConstantine; 02-27-2018 at 11:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 02-28-2018, 01:23 AM
anna (Offline)
Abnormally Articulate
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 130
Thanks: 55
Thanks 88
Default

data collection is simply that - the collection of data and its been going on ad infinitum. Youíve been casually collecting data on anna here over the months weighing up its social status, race, gender, foibles, fixations, fictions, finance, family and fortune. In your head there you reckon youíve got a grip on your own data collection - itís about risk assessment. Am I talking to you, the data would suggest youíre reading this right? Do I exist in the real and how does your perception of anna add up to your fellow posters perception of a persona in virtual reality or indeed the truth, objective or otherwise behind the picture presented here. Do you even give a flying fuck - is it simply a game to you, bluff and double bluff. Do you respond to this post at all, have you read thus far, in what emotional capacity will you respond, a flippant quick retort, a considered appraisal? What is the risk to you, is it worthy of your investment or will it compromise your standing? Is this bollocks that you read, partly, digest and feel smug sort-of. Nobody knows the labyrinth of your mind like you do or think you do, depending. Survival.

You collect given data on services, products, education, forums and entertainment. That home, that neighbour. That fuck. Those net curtains twitching. That album, wtf. You collect data on my ability - or lack of it to waltz with the written word, reason coherently, use the thanks button, critic - or no. You collect data on your health care, that ailment, that surgeon, how many of that procedure has he performed, what is his success rate ... Is that pregnancy healthy?

You have the emotional capacity to work objectively against bias or be blind to its existence within youself, you possibly argue privately at the moral implications of your data detection or perhaps not. Algorithms and big data are actually applied to everybody, itís universal. To demonize the maths is to demonstrate our own deeply personal fallibility. Data can be used as a tool for good equally - to challenge questionable data and to challenge the ethics and social impact of distortions in data collection, inequality, bias construction, a myriad of interpretations and representation, it stands to reason - how else was the book written.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to anna For This Useful Post:
JohnConstantine (02-28-2018)
  #68  
Old 02-28-2018, 02:46 AM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
Don't do this to me PB

Alright fine, maths is racist.

But seriously the way I see it the algorithm doesn't know about racism. It's just making calculations based on likelihood and probability for reasons which are absolutely imperative for the lender to be successful.

Ultimately -- earn good money, and make good on your repayments, the algorithm will then look favourably upon you, regardless of your skin colour.

And yeah lenders are there to make money, but the idea that borrowing and lending doesn't benefit society doesn't make a great deal of sense. Once the propensity to lend decreases we're all in trouble.
Oh no maths isnít racist, but society is, thatís why the statistics finds the bias.

Unfortunately the person does not get a loan in the first place due to their mistake of being born in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong external characteristics. But get this, big data reduces risk yet the lender can still charge interest on the loan... borrowing money would be fine if the person only paid back CGI and a small admin fee, of letís say $50.00.
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 02-28-2018, 02:58 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,908
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by PickleBottom View Post
Oh no maths isnít racist, but society is, thatís why the statistics finds the bias.
But...but... doesn't it find the racial bias through the necessary financial bias though?

Unfortunately the person does not get a loan in the first place due to their mistake of being born in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong external characteristics. But get this, big data reduces risk yet the lender can still charge interest on the loan... borrowing money would be fine if the person only paid back CGI and a small admin fee, of letís say $50.00.
Sure. We all have disadvantages at birth. But anyone can be born to poor or rich parents... not a colour thing.

As for greedy lenders... supply and demand. So long as there are crazy amounts of people looking for credit and willing to take the risks therewith the lenders will charge the interests they can get away with.

If someone entered the market and started handing out loans with little to no interest, and just a small admin fee, presumably they'd get a lot of customers... and a lot of bad debt... thus failing pretty sharpish. Someone would've done it by now if it was viable.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 02-28-2018, 03:00 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,908
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by anna View Post
data collection is simply that - the collection of data and its been going on ad infinitum. Youíve been casually collecting data on anna here over the months weighing up its social status, race, gender, foibles, fixations, fictions, finance, family and fortune. In your head there you reckon youíve got a grip on your own data collection - itís about risk assessment. Am I talking to you, the data would suggest youíre reading this right? Do I exist in the real and how does your perception of anna add up to your fellow posters perception of a persona in virtual reality or indeed the truth, objective or otherwise behind the picture presented here. Do you even give a flying fuck - is it simply a game to you, bluff and double bluff. Do you respond to this post at all, have you read thus far, in what emotional capacity will you respond, a flippant quick retort, a considered appraisal? What is the risk to you, is it worthy of your investment or will it compromise your standing? Is this bollocks that you read, partly, digest and feel smug sort-of. Nobody knows the labyrinth of your mind like you do or think you do, depending. Survival.

You collect given data on services, products, education, forums and entertainment. That home, that neighbour. That fuck. Those net curtains twitching. That album, wtf. You collect data on my ability - or lack of it to waltz with the written word, reason coherently, use the thanks button, critic - or no. You collect data on your health care, that ailment, that surgeon, how many of that procedure has he performed, what is his success rate ... Is that pregnancy healthy?

You have the emotional capacity to work objectively against bias or be blind to its existence within youself, you possibly argue privately at the moral implications of your data detection or perhaps not. Algorithms and big data are actually applied to everybody, itís universal. To demonize the maths is to demonstrate our own deeply personal fallibility. Data can be used as a tool for good equally - to challenge questionable data and to challenge the ethics and social impact of distortions in data collection, inequality, bias construction, a myriad of interpretations and representation, it stands to reason - how else was the book written.
The crazy ones are always the most entertaining
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 02-28-2018, 11:23 AM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
But...but... doesn't it find the racial bias through the necessary financial bias though?



Sure. We all have disadvantages at birth. But anyone can be born to poor or rich parents... not a colour thing.

As for greedy lenders... supply and demand. So long as there are crazy amounts of people looking for credit and willing to take the risks therewith the lenders will charge the interests they can get away with.

If someone entered the market and started handing out loans with little to no interest, and just a small admin fee, presumably they'd get a lot of customers... and a lot of bad debt... thus failing pretty sharpish. Someone would've done it by now if it was viable.
But it is financially biased due to the racial bias

Unfortunately it is more difficult for people of certain characteristics to get from point A in society to point B due to artificial barriers (peopleís prejudices), and unfortunately, looking at the stats again, this is also reflected, but this does not reflect ability. Hereís a question to ponder, do you believe that a woman 100m sprinter would ever make it into an Olympic 100m final competing against men? If you say ďyesĒ you agree with my argument, if you say ďnoĒ you demonstrate that women are underrepresented in maths, because, unlike the sprinter example, there are women in the top ten w.r.t. maths, yet maths is dominated by old white guys. Furthermore, these tenured old white guys are apparently more astute than younger white guys who are currently publishing more in journals - see the predicament here?

w.r.t. bankers, exactly ďhow much they can get away withĒ, it is what happens in an unregulated market where people can (aside from being born rich or having their parents die etc) only get into the housing market by going through these thieves (and degenerate human scum).
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 02-28-2018, 01:19 PM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,908
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by PickleBottom View Post
But it is financially biased due to the racial bias
We're almost there, but we gotta switch the terms around. Racially biased due to financial bias. Racial bias being the byproduct of financial discrimination which happens to accrue more so to poor minorities.

My proof for this is that I can switch the colour of the subject without changing the outcome.

The black guy and the white guy who live in the same area and share the same credit history will have the same credit score, right?

Change the area in which one of them lives, or change one of their credit histories and their credit score will no longer be equal.

Thus the deciding factors are financial and geographical.

Unfortunately it is more difficult for people of certain characteristics to get from point A in society to point B due to artificial barriers (people’s prejudices), and unfortunately, looking at the stats again, this is also reflected, but this does not reflect ability.
It's a complex thing though and very difficult to pin down in my albeit poorly evolved mind. Just being able and qualified doesn't guarantee you a good career. You've gotta be all kinds of things, like, crazy competitive, confident, risk taking, selfish, tenacious, know the right people, make the right moves. And then a whole host of accidental things like birth place, parents etc etc etc factor in but accidental advantages which may accrue disproportionately to one group over another can't be viewed as synonymous with discrimination.

So no I don't think we can take two groups with the same skills and only view their representation or lack thereof in certain professions through the prism of institutional bias. It's one of many possible explanations.

Thomas Sowell explains why we have to be cautious drawing this conclusion when looking at disparities in representation: https://youtu.be/nxygmc_SMAU (apologies for the annoying intro but I think this clip is pretty useful just to see how a serious statistician might go about these things).
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 02-28-2018, 07:28 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
We're almost there, but we gotta switch the terms around. Racially biased due to financial bias. Racial bias being the byproduct of financial discrimination which happens to accrue more so to poor minorities.

My proof for this is that I can switch the colour of the subject without changing the outcome.

The black guy and the white guy who live in the same area and share the same credit history will have the same credit score, right?

Change the area in which one of them lives, or change one of their credit histories and their credit score will no longer be equal.

Thus the deciding factors are financial and geographical.
Unfortunately some algorithms, like neural networks, are black box operations, as the financial institute cannot be discriminatory, which goes back to the link you put in. Therefore if you have a "black" person going into the bank for a loan and this person is rejected and you have a "white" person going in for a loan and this person is not rejected, they both live in the same area and have a similar credit history, the neural network will find something on which to discriminate the two, and this will be based on the data put into their database. But let's state that if a "white" person living in a "black" neighbourhood suddenly cannot get a loan, isn't that showing that bias exists? (I know you did not exactly state this)

Further to this, if people cannot get a house loan because they may default, isn't this saying something relative to house prices / employment?

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
It's a complex thing though and very difficult to pin down in my albeit poorly evolved mind. Just being able and qualified doesn't guarantee you a good career. You've gotta be all kinds of things, like, crazy competitive, confident, risk taking, selfish, tenacious, know the right people, make the right moves. And then a whole host of accidental things like birth place, parents etc etc etc factor in but accidental advantages which may accrue disproportionately to one group over another can't be viewed as synonymous with discrimination.

So no I don't think we can take two groups with the same skills and only view their representation or lack thereof in certain professions through the prism of institutional bias. It's one of many possible explanations.

Thomas Sowell explains why we have to be cautious drawing this conclusion when looking at disparities in representation: https://youtu.be/nxygmc_SMAU (apologies for the annoying intro but I think this clip is pretty useful just to see how a serious statistician might go about these things).
But you also missed out on in your characteristics of success, being "male", being "white", means you already have a frequency of success at birth relative to a person who was born a "female" and "black". Add in for example, born into a conservative family and there is a greater disparity, then also add in X religion and there is a greater disparity etc etc etc
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 03-01-2018, 03:44 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,908
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by PickleBottom View Post
But let's state that if a "white" person living in a "black" neighbourhood suddenly cannot get a loan, isn't that showing that bias exists? (I know you did not exactly state this)
Yes! It's shows that the algorithm is discriminating based on postcode. As I said the deciding factors are geographical and financial. Anyone can apply for a credit card online. It will ask a few questions and do a credit check but none of the inputs refer to race. So if it discriminates by race it can only be coincidental given that all data is non-racial.

This is actually the conclusion of the article. It says the algorithm is racist because the postcode is really a stand in for race.

Further to this, if people cannot get a house loan because they may default, isn't this saying something relative to house prices / employment?
Not sure. Presumably house prices will come down with less buyers in the market. But I'm guessing that's not what you're getting at!

You mean the section which say employers discriminate based on credit scores? I mean, unfortunate, sure. But this looks to me like another way to make a discernment based on finance which just happens to affect minorities disproportionately.

The general thrust I'm getting is... being poor, means it's very easy to stay poor and a bunch of stuff contributes to that which is outside of your control. The opposite is true for being rich.

But you also missed out on in your characteristics of success, being "male", being "white", means you already have a frequency of success at birth relative to a person who was born a "female" and "black". Add in for example, born into a conservative family and there is a greater disparity, then also add in X religion and there is a greater disparity etc etc etc
Gah! Gah!

But yeah I mean I concede this point that more can be added to the list of variables. But you see how the variables can be endless? So how do we ascribe value to these variables as predictors for success?

For example, is being white a better predictor for success than growing up in a stable two parent household? I don't know the answer but being from a single parent household has a seriously negative affect on average earnings.

Is it because firms hate kids from single parent households?

And then what of your culture. Why are Asians bossing it? Do firms love Asians over Hispanics and Blacks? How much does that factor in over and above Asian behaviour as the predictor? I hope you see where I'm going with this... aside from that we might be going 'round in circles and I know we've had a go at this one before so... https://youtu.be/JrK_HVGOnUo
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.

Last edited by JohnConstantine; 03-01-2018 at 06:05 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 03-01-2018, 12:38 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
Yes! It's shows that the algorithm is discriminating based on postcode. As I said the deciding factors are geographical and financial. Anyone can apply for a credit card online. It will ask a few questions and do a credit check but none of the inputs refer to race. So if it discriminates by race it can only be coincidental given that all data is non-racial.

This is actually the conclusion of the article. It says the algorithm is racist because the postcode is really a stand in for race.



Not sure. Presumably house prices will come down with less buyers in the market. But I'm guessing that's not what you're getting at!

You mean the section which say employers discriminate based on credit scores? I mean, unfortunate, sure. But this looks to me like another way to make a discernment based on finance which just happens to affect minorities disproportionately.

The general thrust I'm getting is... being poor, means it's very easy to stay poor and a bunch of stuff contributes to that which is outside of your control. The opposite is true for being rich.



Gah! Gah!

But yeah I mean I concede this point that more can be added to the list of variables. But you see how the variables can be endless? So how do we ascribe value to these variables as predictors for success?

For example, is being white a better predictor for success than growing up in a stable two parent household? I don't know the answer but being from a single parent household has a seriously negative affect on average earnings.

Is it because firms hate kids from single parent households?

And then what of your culture. Why are Asians bossing it? Do firms love Asians over Hispanics and Blacks? How much does that factor in over and above Asian behaviour as the predictor? I hope you see where I'm going with this... aside from that we might be going 'round in circles and I know we've had a go at this one before so... https://youtu.be/JrK_HVGOnUo
Not necessarily, as the article is looking at big data, it could be anything, and as the article states, it can judge a person’s likelihood of offending based on other family members having convictions. But also note this is only used as a tool against the poor, to keep them poor, what is the likelihood of a financial institution committing fraud, tax evasion, collusion etc - see what I’m saying?

Yet here are some of the choices someone from a low socioeconomic background is making, 1) born into a poor neighbourhood 2) attend a poorly funded school 3) have a criminal record based on family member crimes 4) is the wrong skin colour or sex or any other arbitrary characteristic to be able to be employed in certain occupations 5) due to their neighbourhood, poor education, criminal record, occupation they cannot get a house loan...

Now here’s being rich, 1) born into an affluent neighbourhood 2) attend well funded, good reputation school 3) put animals in the microwave or whatever they want, as their father’s lawyers will ensure they do not have a criminal record 4) be the correct colour and sex to know that 2 x 3 = 6 5) do not need to go for a bank loan because their father buys them a house

As to the answer to the latter question (and I’m not trying to model your life here);

Single parent usually means mother, mother = female (usually) therefore no chance they will be able to know that 2 x 3 = 6, unless they want to be a teacher, average lower wage than male counterpart, if ex-husband was not wealthy, most likely in lower socioeconomic neighbourhood, if ex-husband was not wealthy, would most likely rent (but depending on how much of an asshole the ex-husband is the mother could still be renting with no child support payments), if the child is “black” add a few more negatives to the above. Looking at all the choices that a child has made in the above, what would big data say about them?
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw

Last edited by PickleBottom; 03-01-2018 at 08:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 03-01-2018, 02:30 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,841
Thanks: 396
Thanks 1,044
Default

Originally Posted by PickleBottom View Post
Not necessarily, as the article is looking at big data, it could be anything, and as the article states it can judge a personís likelihood of offending based on other family members having convictions. But also note this is only used as a tool against the poor, to keep them poor, what is the likelihood of a financial institution committing fraud, tax evasion, collusion etc - see what Iím saying?

Yet here are some of the choices someone from a low socioeconomic background is making, 1) born into a poor neighbourhood 2) attend a poorly funded school 3) have a criminal record based on family member crimes 4) is the wrong skin colour or sex or any other arbitrary characteristic to be able to be employed in certain occupations 5) due to their neighbourhood, poor education, criminal record, occupation they cannot get a house loan...

Now hereís being rich, 1) born into an affluent neighbourhood 2) attend well funded, good reputation school 3) put animals in the microwave or whatever they want, as their fatherís lawyers will ensure they do not have a criminal record 4) be the correct colour and sex to know that 2 x 3 = 6 5) do not need to go for a bank loan because their father buys them a house

As to the answer to the latter question (and Iím not trying to model your life here);

Single parent usually means mother, mother = female (usually) therefore no chance they will be able to know that 2 x 3 = 6, unless they want to be a teacher, average lower wage than male counterpart, if ex-husband was not wealthy, most likely in lower socioeconomic neighbourhood, if ex-husband was not wealthy, would most likely rent (but depending on how much of an asshole the ex-husband is the mother could still be renting with no child support payments), if the child is ďblackĒ add a few more negatives to the above. Looking at all the choices that a child has made in the above, what would big data say about them?


And this was more the point I was trying to make. wrt the video of Doc Brown, yeah, itís silly to think that everyone and everything is ďracist.Ē And if JC is making that narrow point, I agree. If you look at the racist maths article narrowly, you could conclude itís silly. Of course math in and of itself is not racist or biased. Itís the people who use it can be. And I know they are just using a system that predicts with some degree of certainty they will get a positive return on their loan, but the system also consistently pushes the bottom down, while raising the top up. And you could say: ďwell, whatís wrong with that? They are just seeking return on their investment.Ē And Id agree, on an individual case by case basis, they are just doing whatís in the interest of the company, entity, institution, of which they are a part. But when most of our math geniuses are pulled into finance and business, instead of jobs at NASA, or some other science, the system becomes skewed with talent, and the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Itís not a zero sum game, there are always new ideas, but the speed with which these ideas get monetized and fed into the existing system (as tech advances) is staggering.

Wages have not risen in the US since the 80ís. Minimum wage in the 60ís was higher than it is now when adjusted for inflation. Why is that? Is it a coincidence?

And I can say: ďI own my own business, and make plenty of money, so why should I care?Ē Well, when the masses on the bottom finally get fed up, and come to town with the pitchforks (or AR15ís, these days) will they think Iím with them, or will they conclude Iím part of the problem and burn my house down?

ďBurn all the rich bastards! Theyíre all part of the problem!Ē

Meanwhile, Iím not rich. But when you make less than $25-30,000 a year, I might look like I am.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to brianpatrick For This Useful Post:
PickleBottom (03-01-2018)
  #77  
Old 03-02-2018, 01:00 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,908
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by PickleBottom View Post
Not necessarily, as the article is looking at big data, it could be anything, and as the article states, it can judge a person’s likelihood of offending based on other family members having convictions. But also note this is only used as a tool against the poor, to keep them poor, what is the likelihood of a financial institution committing fraud, tax evasion, collusion etc - see what I’m saying?
It could be anything, apart from race. I don't really contend with the general point you're making other than on a technicality. But the technicality, for me, prevents us from characterising this as direct racism.

These are non-racially defined inputs which produce racist outcomes.

Here's a thought experiment.

You have to pick a basketball team. All you know is their height, you cannot set eyes on them or know their ethnic background.

Will height come into your decision?

If you pick all the tallest people, that would make sense. It's a rational decision which happens to statistically discriminate against Asians.

Furthermore, it does keep the poor poor, it isn't to keep the poor poor. I really don't think lenders give a flying fuck, they really don't. There's a benchmark at which they have mathematically determined enough likelihood of profitability, that's it, class consciousness doesn't really come into it... the question of whether you can make your repayments is king. Deepening of class divisions is again technically coincidental.

As for big data reverse discrimination, take your point. Though it's not unfathomable that it happens at higher levels. The government is always trying to catch out businesses when it comes to contravening regulation. Presumably for efficiency's sake some statistical probability of fowl play factor into the audit process. And states themselves are constantly being evaluated as to their ability to make good on their repayments. Is, that a poorly performing economy in the third world has to lower the price of its bonds and pay out higher interest on them a form of racism? -- it would certainly befall more black and brown people than anyone else.

Yet here are some of the choices someone from a low socioeconomic background is making, 1) born into a poor neighbourhood 2) attend a poorly funded school 3) have a criminal record based on family member crimes 4) is the wrong skin colour or sex or any other arbitrary characteristic to be able to be employed in certain occupations 5) due to their neighbourhood, poor education, criminal record, occupation they cannot get a house loan...
Yes. Once we establish this, however, the next stage has to be to evaluate the potency of each predictor, one of which is race, one of which is sex. This is something I very, very rarely see considered.

Just anecdotally the successful people I know come in all different shapes, sizes, colours and backgrounds, their single most common factor is confidence, intelligence and work ethic.

Ah and now we see why no one wants to talk about it. Because the implication then is white are more confident, intelligent, hard working. AHHHHHHH!

But once you get over that heart attack, the idea that these things are excluded from our calculations is literally INSANE. I know a bunch of stupid people who do really well in the market because they're just ridiculously, and baselessly confident. Maybe it's just baseless confidence which rules the world; explains Trump right
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.

Last edited by JohnConstantine; 03-02-2018 at 01:09 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 03-02-2018, 12:35 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Icon8

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
It could be anything, apart from race. I don't really contend with the general point you're making other than on a technicality. But the technicality, for me, prevents us from characterising this as direct racism.

These are non-racially defined inputs which produce racist outcomes.

Here's a thought experiment.

You have to pick a basketball team. All you know is their height, you cannot set eyes on them or know their ethnic background.

Will height come into your decision?

If you pick all the tallest people, that would make sense. It's a rational decision which happens to statistically discriminate against Asians.

Furthermore, it does keep the poor poor, it isn't to keep the poor poor. I really don't think lenders give a flying fuck, they really don't. There's a benchmark at which they have mathematically determined enough likelihood of profitability, that's it, class consciousness doesn't really come into it... the question of whether you can make your repayments is king. Deepening of class divisions is again technically coincidental.

As for big data reverse discrimination, take your point. Though it's not unfathomable that it happens at higher levels. The government is always trying to catch out businesses when it comes to contravening regulation. Presumably for efficiency's sake some statistical probability of fowl play factor into the audit process. And states themselves are constantly being evaluated as to their ability to make good on their repayments. Is, that a poorly performing economy in the third world has to lower the price of its bonds and pay out higher interest on them a form of racism? -- it would certainly befall more black and brown people than anyone else.



Yes. Once we establish this, however, the next stage has to be to evaluate the potency of each predictor, one of which is race, one of which is sex. This is something I very, very rarely see considered.

Just anecdotally the successful people I know come in all different shapes, sizes, colours and backgrounds, their single most common factor is confidence, intelligence and work ethic.

Ah and now we see why no one wants to talk about it. Because the implication then is white are more confident, intelligent, hard working. AHHHHHHH!

But once you get over that heart attack, the idea that these things are excluded from our calculations is literally INSANE. I know a bunch of stupid people who do really well in the market because they're just ridiculously, and baselessly confident. Maybe it's just baseless confidence which rules the world; explains Trump right
Oh no, it definitely is racist, because the system discriminates against ďblackĒ people.

But your thought experiment isnít a good analogy of this, there is no socio-cultural mechanism to reduce the heights of Asian people to ensure they infrequently qualify. The better one will be to look at the relative frequency of old white guys as tenured maths Professors at University, if I could only choose people for a maths team based on the person holding professorship (a socio-cultural phenomena as this is a peer-based system) I would not be getting many young males (white or black), women (white or black, old or young) or old black men. This shows me that young people therefore are less likely to understand maths, nor women, nor black people. The better question to ask here is how come Old white guys from affluent backgrounds donít come out on top as the best basketballers? If their ability is actually tested in a fair and open competition where would they really stand?

The system exists to keep the poor poor if it has been recognised as keeping the poor poor, yet still remains in place. Letís go back to the basketball analogy, if old white guys from affluent backgrounds do have natural ability there is no reason to not even up the playing field. Surely, according to them, they will come out on top.

If the system isnít designed to keep poor people poor, why not impose the same rules on the top end of town? There is a high likelihood of corruption and vice at the top end of town, so why not just arrest them all?


Nope, unfortunately ďhard-workingĒ correlated with money is just pleb mentality, it is a statement with no factual basis, it is a lie, part of the system to keep people in their place (they are always not working hard enough, not that everything is tuned to keep them in poverty) the reason being is, the person with all the money are not doing the work, if you donít believe me letís get out all these old geezers, who are still ďworkingĒ, who have billions of dollars and put them to work (and I donít mean manual labour), letís get them working in their area of expertise vs some of their own staff members (the people who actually do the work). Letís also see how competent and intelligent some of the people who have inherited their money, position and title are (even the ďnot what you know but who you knowĒ people.

You might argue, ďbut managementĒ, but hereís a philosophical question for you;

You are a CEO and have 1 manager at the same pay scale as 10 engineers, meaning the manager does 10x the work as 1 engineer, and there is another company with the same workforce. Would you,
1) swap your engineers for the other companyís manager, or
2) swap your manager for the other companyís engineers

Nope what rules the world are rules, that the people in power are allowed to make which are designed to keep them in power (that donít apply to them), letís also consider the rules that they frequently break that a reasonable and morally inclined person would not break, and also take into consideration that they are sociopathic narcissists. This is not what I would consider ďconfidenceĒ.

The biggest clue that a person has an unreasonable view of themself is when they proclaim ďI want to be presidentĒ, most people get over this when they are 6 years old and are slowly getting over their baby-ego and realising that other people have agency.
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 03-02-2018, 01:08 PM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,908
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by PickleBottom View Post

Nope, unfortunately “hard-working” correlated with money is just pleb mentality, it is a statement with no factual basis, it is a lie, part of the system to keep people in their place (they are always not working hard enough, not that everything is tuned to keep them in poverty) the reason being is, the person with all the money are not doing the work, if you don’t believe me let’s get out all these old geezers, who are still “working”, who have billions of dollars and put them to work (and I don’t mean manual labour), let’s get them working in their area of expertise vs some of their own staff members (the people who actually do the work). Let’s also see how competent and intelligent some of the people who have inherited their money, position and title are (even the “not what you know but who you know” people.
I digest this all in time but I had to pick this bit out...

Some people are sitting on cash and living it up on yachts on daddy's money -- it's not the rule. The idea that high functioning CEO's and such aren't typically workaholics doesn't wash one bit with me. And I'm betting that the old geezers worked harder than I ever had at one point even if they don't now. Do you think someone like Steve Jobs, say, just sits around all day eating chips off his third belly? And let's give him the same start in life but this time he's a lazy fuck who smokes weed all day watching B movies and jacking off. Does Apple still exist in this scenario?

But anyways the contention is that hard work factors into success. You surely can't say that it doesn't.

That some successful people don't work hard and some unsuccessful people work hard doesn't negate the fact working hard will factor into probability of success.

Think of it this way. Two groups of kids who are geniuses, all other things being equal, except that one group is lazy as shit and the other is hard working and dedicated.

Do you really think one group doesn't therefore have a better chance?

This isn't to say hard work is king. It is to say that we can add it into our list of variables, or predictors for success.

PS I'm genuinely sorry if any of this upsets you it's not my intention.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to JohnConstantine For This Useful Post:
PickleBottom (03-02-2018)
  #80  
Old 03-02-2018, 01:56 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
I digest this all in time but I had to pick this bit out...

Some people are sitting on cash and living it up on yachts on daddy's money -- it's not the rule. The idea that high functioning CEO's and such aren't typically workaholics doesn't wash one bit with me. And I'm betting that the old geezers worked harder than I ever had at one point even if they don't now. Do you think someone like Steve Jobs, say, just sits around all day eating chips off his third belly? And let's give him the same start in life but this time he's a lazy fuck who smokes weed all day watching B movies and jacking off. Does Apple still exist in this scenario?

But anyways the contention is that hard work factors into success. You surely can't say that it doesn't.

That some successful people don't work hard and some unsuccessful people work hard doesn't negate the fact working hard will factor into probability of success.

Think of it this way. Two groups of kids who are geniuses, all other things being equal, except that one group is lazy as shit and the other is hard working and dedicated.

Do you really think one group doesn't therefore have a better chance?

This isn't to say hard work is king. It is to say that we can add it into our list of variables, or predictors for success.

PS I'm genuinely sorry if any of this upsets you it's not my intention.
Definitely no upset nor taking anything personally, but you have to realise that you are stating that you find the notion of money not being correlated with hard work amusing but you didnít answer the question, would you swap 10 engineers for 1 manager? The manager is worth 10x the amount of 1 engineer, so should be able to work 10x harder be 10x smarter etc.
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 03-02-2018, 02:30 PM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,908
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

That's not what I'm saying though. I'm not saying your income is a perfect reflection of how hard you work, that's absurd. Life isn't that simple. For one it depends where you focus your effort, eg: focussing to become a manager vs focusing become an engineer. So then factor in choices made in life. You could be a hard working juggler. You could be the hardest working juggler ever, chances are you'll make peanuts. You've still got a better chance than the juggler who mainly watches re-runs of red dwarf.


I am saying that how hard you work, or your attitude towards work is not irrelevant. Yet we don't want to touch it when doing our analysis of success/income because it's controversial, same goes for intelligence. Basically what we're talking here is agency. How powerful is agency over variables outside of that. That's an interesting question. The answer I'm getting from you is that it matters very little. But I cant see how that's true.

Choices
Attitude
Work ethic
Personality
Intelligence

By only looking at ethnic, gender, social and class type variables we ignore the above and that seems negligent. I appreciate it's difficult to measure.

But here's why we really can't ignore it. What if it's really important, like more important than anything, and yet we're saying it's not. That does people a great disservice. Because then you're equipping people with the mindset that it doesn't matter what you do.

Let me ask this, there's the old thing 10 inspiration 90 percent perspiration.

Let's go with agency and accident at birth. In your estimation what's the weighting of agency relative to accident at birth?
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.

Last edited by JohnConstantine; 03-02-2018 at 02:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 03-02-2018, 03:48 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
That's not what I'm saying though. I'm not saying your income is a perfect reflection of how hard you work, that's absurd. Life isn't that simple. For one it depends where you focus your effort, eg: focussing to become a manager vs focusing become an engineer. So then factor in choices made in life. You could be a hard working juggler. You could be the hardest working juggler ever, chances are you'll make peanuts. You've still got a better chance than the juggler who mainly watches re-runs of red dwarf.


I am saying that how hard you work, or your attitude towards work is not irrelevant. Yet we don't want to touch it when doing our analysis of success/income because it's controversial, same goes for intelligence. Basically what we're talking here is agency. How powerful is agency over variables outside of that. That's an interesting question. The answer I'm getting from you is that it matters very little. But I cant see how that's true.

Choices
Attitude
Work ethic
Personality
Intelligence

By only looking at ethnic, gender, social and class type variables we ignore the above and that seems negligent. I appreciate it's difficult to measure.

But here's why we really can't ignore it. What if it's really important, like more important than anything, and yet we're saying it's not. That does people a great disservice. Because then you're equipping people with the mindset that it doesn't matter what you do.

Let me ask this, there's the old thing 10 inspiration 90 percent perspiration.

Let's go with agency and accident at birth. In your estimation what's the weighting of agency relative to accident at birth?
If people were given agency society would look much different then what it is today, but it is because people are not allowed agency, for example, due to racist big data algorithms, that society is the way it is.

I notice youíve dropped the hard work now (but replaced it with ďwork ethicĒ) which is good, because this pleb mentality goes around unchallenged but it is utterly baseless, the people paid the most in society are not the hardest workers (there would not be one of them in the top ten), nor are they the most intelligent (in a intelligentsia sense of the word, there would not be one of them in the top ten), Iíve talked about choices w.r.t. agency above, but your other two are closer to the mark, if personality = immoral, thug, sociopath, then you are right on the money (and likewise with attitude) - and the top ten sociopath, thug and immoral list will be rife with the people who are paid the most.


Hereís something interesting the world powers should contemplate, out of the following who gets more money, yet who would be more useful in a goal of being the biggest arse-raping country on Earth, that is, if Russia and America could only choose one of the following who would they choose?

1) CEO or Researcher
2) Pope or Scientist
3) President or Engineer

Who made the better choices towards the goal of the country?
Who has the strongest work ethic?
Who is more intelligent?

And finally, again
But, who has the most money?

Funny thing is, what Iím stating is true, and any country could take this into account and contemplate their priorities in investment and will instantly become the biggest arse-raping country on Earth. Do you know why they donít? Because;

1) if we return to the list above, who is making all the choices?
2) if we return to the list above, who will be less likely to be war-mongering idiots hell bent on being the biggest arse-raping country on Earth
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 03-05-2018, 01:42 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,908
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by PickleBottom View Post
If people were given agency society would look much different then what it is today, but it is because people are not allowed agency, for example, due to racist big data algorithms, that society is the way it is.
If there is no agency then the weighting is 0% agency and 100% accident at birth. No free will, we cannot attribute any kind of achievement to the individual, and we should hold everything in common.

And what do we tell the kids?

I notice youíve dropped the hard work now (but replaced it with ďwork ethicĒ) which is good, because this pleb mentality goes around unchallenged but it is utterly baseless, the people paid the most in society are not the hardest workers (there would not be one of them in the top ten), nor are they the most intelligent (in a intelligentsia sense of the word, there would not be one of them in the top ten), Iíve talked about choices w.r.t. agency above, but your other two are closer to the mark, if personality = immoral, thug, sociopath, then you are right on the money (and likewise with attitude) - and the top ten sociopath, thug and immoral list will be rife with the people who are paid the most.
Well I can go back to hard work. The problem here is that were working with different frameworks. I absolutely agree with you but again this isn't my contention. I've said the amount of effort being directly correlated with something like income is absurd. But equally, to say that working hard, or intelligence, does not factor in is also absurd, work ethic, attitude to work etc I think is semantic but I'll come back to that...

As for being a sociopath well see this is where it gets murky. How sociopathic do you have to be to become a doctor? Or start a charity? And how much does this weigh against your intelligence and attitude to work? How much does it weigh against our non-agency-related variables? What if you're an intelligent sociopath who can't be bothered to do anything... you think those people don't exist? What if you're black, from a poor neighbourhood, highly conscientious, highly intelligent with a great work ethic vs black from the same neighbourhood, highly sociopathic, borderline retarded and lazy as shit?

I take your point that sociopaths may well cluster at the top. But I'd rather see some real studies which take personality and behavioural traits as predictors of success into account along with education, social background, familial structure, ethnic origin, age, religion, gender and so on. That's a tricky thing to do but otherwise it appears to me we're treating a very complex subject without the necessary care and attention.

I keep pulling this card and I'm going to again...

Ashkenazi Jews migrate to Europe and America and within a few hundred years overtake everyone by quite some margin. We can't say they didn't face their share of discrimination. We could probably make some inferences based on their complexion. But we've probably got to look at their behaviour. And would we be comfortable with saying that they share increased sociopathic tendencies relative to other ethnic groups?

It's the same in Malaysia. The Chinese were heavily discriminated against and still succeeded disproportionately. African migrants tend to do better than African Americans. OK we might say these are the elites from Africa or something like that but it seems to me in such a racist society African migrants shouldn't be doing well at all.

Hereís something interesting the world powers should contemplate, out of the following who gets more money, yet who would be more useful in a goal of being the biggest arse-raping country on Earth, that is, if Russia and America could only choose one of the following who would they choose?

1) CEO or Researcher
2) Pope or Scientist
3) President or Engineer

Who made the better choices towards the goal of the country?
Who has the strongest work ethic?
Who is more intelligent?

And finally, again
But, who has the most money?
I dunno dude, I'm stuck. I mean you could probably do away with the Pope and the Pres, maybe even CEO's (though some leadership structure will naturally occur)... but you kind of need Engineers, Research and Science.

Let's say the engineer has a stronger work ethic than the scientist but earns less. This doesn't negate the fact that both individuals have a better work ethic than either of my three uncles who hardly worked for most of their lives. All of the above will have made better choices than a say, and crack head on her third baby daddy. And what if I want to be a teacher over being a scientist? -- my choice isn't better or worse per se but it does strongly pertain to my income.

Alright so work ethic does matter, choices do matter. I don't know how much they matter, just that they do. Finding out how much they matter is imperative to truly figuring out the nature of income disparity. Yet we don't even factor it in.

Funny thing is, what Iím stating is true, and any country could take this into account and contemplate their priorities in investment and will instantly become the biggest arse-raping country on Earth. Do you know why they donít? Because;

1) if we return to the list above, who is making all the choices?
2) if we return to the list above, who will be less likely to be war-mongering idiots hell bent on being the biggest arse-raping country on Earth
Take your point, but I don't think any group is less likely to become a psycho imperialist juggernaut purely by virtue of their occupations. Depends on their philosophy. I mean, a cabal of evil scientists...

Hitler was an artist.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 03-05-2018, 03:00 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
If there is no agency then the weighting is 0% agency and 100% accident at birth. No free will, we cannot attribute any kind of achievement to the individual, and we should hold everything in common.

And what do we tell the kids?



Well I can go back to hard work. The problem here is that were working with different frameworks. I absolutely agree with you but again this isn't my contention. I've said the amount of effort being directly correlated with something like income is absurd. But equally, to say that working hard, or intelligence, does not factor in is also absurd, work ethic, attitude to work etc I think is semantic but I'll come back to that...

As for being a sociopath well see this is where it gets murky. How sociopathic do you have to be to become a doctor? Or start a charity? And how much does this weigh against your intelligence and attitude to work? How much does it weigh against our non-agency-related variables? What if you're an intelligent sociopath who can't be bothered to do anything... you think those people don't exist? What if you're black, from a poor neighbourhood, highly conscientious, highly intelligent with a great work ethic vs black from the same neighbourhood, highly sociopathic, borderline retarded and lazy as shit?

I take your point that sociopaths may well cluster at the top. But I'd rather see some real studies which take personality and behavioural traits as predictors of success into account along with education, social background, familial structure, ethnic origin, age, religion, gender and so on. That's a tricky thing to do but otherwise it appears to me we're treating a very complex subject without the necessary care and attention.

I keep pulling this card and I'm going to again...

Ashkenazi Jews migrate to Europe and America and within a few hundred years overtake everyone by quite some margin. We can't say they didn't face their share of discrimination. We could probably make some inferences based on their complexion. But we've probably got to look at their behaviour. And would we be comfortable with saying that they share increased sociopathic tendencies relative to other ethnic groups?

It's the same in Malaysia. The Chinese were heavily discriminated against and still succeeded disproportionately. African migrants tend to do better than African Americans. OK we might say these are the elites from Africa or something like that but it seems to me in such a racist society African migrants shouldn't be doing well at all.



I dunno dude, I'm stuck. I mean you could probably do away with the Pope and the Pres, maybe even CEO's (though some leadership structure will naturally occur)... but you kind of need Engineers, Research and Science.

Let's say the engineer has a stronger work ethic than the scientist but earns less. This doesn't negate the fact that both individuals have a better work ethic than either of my three uncles who hardly worked for most of their lives. All of the above will have made better choices than a say, and crack head on her third baby daddy. And what if I want to be a teacher over being a scientist? -- my choice isn't better or worse per se but it does strongly pertain to my income.

Alright so work ethic does matter, choices do matter. I don't know how much they matter, just that they do. Finding out how much they matter is imperative to truly figuring out the nature of income disparity. Yet we don't even factor it in.



Take your point, but I don't think any group is less likely to become a psycho imperialist juggernaut purely by virtue of their occupations. Depends on their philosophy. I mean, a cabal of evil scientists...

Hitler was an artist.
Busy as, so apologies if I miss anything.

I thought about this and I believe the misunderstanding with the hard work may come about because you are thinking about people who are adverse to work (and not frequently working) at the bottom end, whereas Iím talking about the people adverse to work at the top end, including managers, CEOs, presidents, royalty, investors etc etc and Iím not comparing these people with the people who are adverse to work (and not frequently working) at the bottom end but am comparing them to the people who do all the work. These people are not rich. See what Iím saying?

w.r.t. doctors, take it from this angle, if people go into healthcare because they are concerned about human health, how expensive would you expect healthcare to be? What about lawyers re justice etc etc and the further you go up the healthcare hierarchy no doubt you will find people willing to charge 1000s of dollars for people to get a life-saving pill etc etc not through hard work (they buy IP), not intelligence (they buy IP) not relative to a goal of healthcare. But in terms of being a sociopath...

Iím not sure why you are discussing Ashkenazi Jews?

The last part of your post is, IMO, a misunderstanding, most people, engineer, rat catcher, police officer, artist etc who have made it up through to the top rungs of humanity is most likely a degenerate thug whack-job.
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 03-05-2018, 04:42 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Default

I forgot to add one more thing, "what do we tell the kids?"

While sociopaths are ruling the world, here are a few things we should not be telling the kids;

Hope
Heaven
Karma
Forgiveness
Meekness
Jesus loves them
They have free will
They can choose to be who they want
If they believe in their dreams they can achieve anything

and of course... work hard and you will be rewarded
etc etc etc
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw

Last edited by PickleBottom; 03-05-2018 at 05:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 03-06-2018, 01:58 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,908
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by PickleBottom View Post
Busy as, so apologies if I miss anything.

I thought about this and I believe the misunderstanding with the hard work may come about because you are thinking about people who are adverse to work (and not frequently working) at the bottom end, whereas I’m talking about the people adverse to work at the top end, including managers, CEOs, presidents, royalty, investors etc etc and I’m not comparing these people with the people who are adverse to work (and not frequently working) at the bottom end but am comparing them to the people who do all the work. These people are not rich. See what I’m saying?
Kind of, but it's not clear cut to me. The most lazy people in the world simply won't work, period. So they cluster at the bottom. Then say menial, low wage jobs -- I've worked my fair share. Some of them you have to work. But I've found plenty where you can basically do nothing. Like now, I earn close to 30k and I do literally fuck all, I don't mind admitting it. I send a report every so often which takes ten mins to knock up and take a phone call every so often. My manager works his ass off. His manager is a total workaholic under a great deal of pressure; but he earns the BIG bucks.

I think the reason why they don't realise that I hardly do anything is probably because they're too busy. (I'm at work right now!)

Now this does illustrate your point because the company I work for is owned by two non executive directors. So yeah they don't do anything, just collect what's left after costs are covered.

But here's the thing. They started out with a small independent shop. They had an idea, and remortgaged both their homes taking a massive risk to make it into a reality. At that point they will have worked their ass off to grow the company to the point where they no longer had to manage it and could employ people to do it for them.

So in this case, yes they're white men. But they are also smart, risk takers, entrepreneurial, and hard workers, whose work just happened to pay off. So now they can play golf or whatever.

The point is that there are places in each echelon where you can get away with doing little to no work. But those are clustered at the bottom. There are more 20k a year jobs which require no work than there are 50k a year jobs which require no work. And if you find yourself in the position of non executive director having not worked a day I'd wager that you are in a tiny minority and that most people have had to really excel and exert themselves to get to that level.

The company has since been bought, and that company has recently been bought again, so it now sits within a vast network of companies owned by a huge American transnational. We recently heard from the board who are a group of seriously wealthy, fairly young white male investors. They introduced themselves and kind of went through their corporate vision.

Now I'm looking at these guys and to be honest... do I see immoral thugs or whatever? Not really. These are guys all with PHD's, all high functioning, very articulate, stupidly confident, all married with families, all went into some form of investment banking and through some Soros funded type institution. Again, not spotting any innate laziness. I'm lazy... they're nothing like me.

w.r.t. doctors, take it from this angle, if people go into healthcare because they are concerned about human health, how expensive would you expect healthcare to be? What about lawyers re justice etc etc and the further you go up the healthcare hierarchy no doubt you will find people willing to charge 1000s of dollars for people to get a life-saving pill etc etc not through hard work (they buy IP), not intelligence (they buy IP) not relative to a goal of healthcare. But in terms of being a sociopath...
Take you point to a degree. But look ALL humans are selfish, it doesn't mean all humans are sociopaths. We ALL respond to incentives. Being a doctor more or less sucks, sure some people will do it out of the goodness of their hearts. But just because some would only do it if properly compensated, for me, doesn't mean they are incapable of empathy.

And sociopathy is still useless without hard work and intelligence. Put a bunch of low IQ sociopaths in charge of any large pharma company you can think of... it won't work. They simply won't know what to do. I don't think I'm stupid... but I would NOT being able to run a large Pharmaceutical.

Edit:

Another thing to take from this is if you leave people alone they will look to accumulate more stuff for themselves relative to others. This is a natural inclination. Because it's a natural thing, to make people play fair and share like good little girls and boys we're going to need a massive network of gestapo type muscle.

I’m not sure why you are discussing Ashkenazi Jews?
In the same context as Chinese people being overrepresented at the top in Malaysia despite being discriminated against by the Malays. This goes against the narrative that those at the top are there because of favouritism/ethnic preference/positive discrimination. So wouldn't we then need to explore the behaviour of certain ethnic groups to see if there is something in the way they operate which is driving their success?

The last part of your post is, IMO, a misunderstanding, most people, engineer, rat catcher, police officer, artist etc who have made it up through to the top rungs of humanity is most likely a degenerate thug whack-job.
I mean I'd agree with that sort of. But this goes for women, and ethnic minorities etc etc. Some people call it being 'tough' right. OK so add toughness to the list. And maybe this trait, being a degenerate thug, explains the gender split as much of not more so than structural sexism. That is, that if women were more like this they'd run more of the ftse 100 companies. It just so happens that men are more aggressive and less empathetic, which is pretty much accepted as a biological fact.

This isn't a declarative statement. It's just to illustrate how choice, behaviour, personality does play a part in income disparity. If it didn't then we wouldn't see a certain personality 'type' at the top.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.

Last edited by JohnConstantine; 03-06-2018 at 02:14 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 03-06-2018, 02:06 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,908
Thanks: 207
Thanks 725
Default

Originally Posted by PickleBottom View Post
I forgot to add one more thing, "what do we tell the kids?"

While sociopaths are ruling the world, here are a few things we should not be telling the kids;

Hope
Heaven
Karma
Forgiveness
Meekness
Jesus loves them
They have free will
They can choose to be who they want
If they believe in their dreams they can achieve anything

and of course... work hard and you will be rewarded
etc etc etc
Sure.

But the alternative message to all to flowery wishful thinking can't be 'it doesn't matter what you do, the game is rigged and you are just a helpless automaton'.

It's a sure fire route to create a generation of nihilists in my estimation. So you're going to have to come up with framework for how one should treat life; if to accept that it's not fair.

In the absence of fairness... why play the game? The kids will need a reason.

(And the reason is that you can statistically improve your chances for success/survival by the way you think and act)
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.

Last edited by JohnConstantine; 03-06-2018 at 03:24 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 03-06-2018, 12:47 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
Kind of, but it's not clear cut to me. The most lazy people in the world simply won't work, period. So they cluster at the bottom. Then say menial, low wage jobs -- I've worked my fair share. Some of them you have to work. But I've found plenty where you can basically do nothing. Like now, I earn close to 30k and I do literally fuck all, I don't mind admitting it. I send a report every so often which takes ten mins to knock up and take a phone call every so often. My manager works his ass off. His manager is a total workaholic under a great deal of pressure; but he earns the BIG bucks.

I think the reason why they don't realise that I hardly do anything is probably because they're too busy. (I'm at work right now!)

Now this does illustrate your point because the company I work for is owned by two non executive directors. So yeah they don't do anything, just collect what's left after costs are covered.

But here's the thing. They started out with a small independent shop. They had an idea, and remortgaged both their homes taking a massive risk to make it into a reality. At that point they will have worked their ass off to grow the company to the point where they no longer had to manage it and could employ people to do it for them.

So in this case, yes they're white men. But they are also smart, risk takers, entrepreneurial, and hard workers, whose work just happened to pay off. So now they can play golf or whatever.

The point is that there are places in each echelon where you can get away with doing little to no work. But those are clustered at the bottom. There are more 20k a year jobs which require no work than there are 50k a year jobs which require no work. And if you find yourself in the position of non executive director having not worked a day I'd wager that you are in a tiny minority and that most people have had to really excel and exert themselves to get to that level.

The company has since been bought, and that company has recently been bought again, so it now sits within a vast network of companies owned by a huge American transnational. We recently heard from the board who are a group of seriously wealthy, fairly young white male investors. They introduced themselves and kind of went through their corporate vision.

Now I'm looking at these guys and to be honest... do I see immoral thugs or whatever? Not really. These are guys all with PHD's, all high functioning, very articulate, stupidly confident, all married with families, all went into some form of investment banking and through some Soros funded type institution. Again, not spotting any innate laziness. I'm lazy... they're nothing like me.



Take you point to a degree. But look ALL humans are selfish, it doesn't mean all humans are sociopaths. We ALL respond to incentives. Being a doctor more or less sucks, sure some people will do it out of the goodness of their hearts. But just because some would only do it if properly compensated, for me, doesn't mean they are incapable of empathy.

And sociopathy is still useless without hard work and intelligence. Put a bunch of low IQ sociopaths in charge of any large pharma company you can think of... it won't work. They simply won't know what to do. I don't think I'm stupid... but I would NOT being able to run a large Pharmaceutical.

Edit:

Another thing to take from this is if you leave people alone they will look to accumulate more stuff for themselves relative to others. This is a natural inclination. Because it's a natural thing, to make people play fair and share like good little girls and boys we're going to need a massive network of gestapo type muscle.



In the same context as Chinese people being overrepresented at the top in Malaysia despite being discriminated against by the Malays. This goes against the narrative that those at the top are there because of favouritism/ethnic preference/positive discrimination. So wouldn't we then need to explore the behaviour of certain ethnic groups to see if there is something in the way they operate which is driving their success?



I mean I'd agree with that sort of. But this goes for women, and ethnic minorities etc etc. Some people call it being 'tough' right. OK so add toughness to the list. And maybe this trait, being a degenerate thug, explains the gender split as much of not more so than structural sexism. That is, that if women were more like this they'd run more of the ftse 100 companies. It just so happens that men are more aggressive and less empathetic, which is pretty much accepted as a biological fact.

This isn't a declarative statement. It's just to illustrate how choice, behaviour, personality does play a part in income disparity. If it didn't then we wouldn't see a certain personality 'type' at the top.
In a hierarchical structure you will find (roughly) that there is 1 person up the rungs of society for every 10 people on the rung below (roughly) (not by individual institution) when you are discussing the executives who do no work, there are ~20 people working as hard as they did to get where they are, with similar intelligence, with similar choices, but there are only 2 positions available (if population remains static). These 2 executives do not have any superpowers that other people do not have, but would they, for example, close their eyes to immoral or questionable behaviour if it helped boost them up...?

Would it actually be a fair statement that if we created a closed environment, and removed serendipity and luck, that if any of the other 20 people who are working hard are exhibiting questionable behaviour that the top 2 must be doing the same or worse?

Now you would state that the 2 have some supernatural ability that is not possessed by millions of other people, even with the same super-white male powers, but I would claim they are very lucky (and as they move further up improbably so) or do not always have the best interests of other people in mind.

Additionally, these guys didn’t have racist big data algorithms preventing them from getting the mortgage in the first place.

The reason you look at these people and don’t see thuggery is perhaps you look at society through rosy glasses with some of the pleb mentality (sorry not trying to insult) mentioned above, hope, heaven, karma etc etc This is the same reason that most people will also find my arguments instantly abhorrent... but it is always easier to sell people shit then it is to tell them the truth.


Say if there is a poor Chinese person with poor education, where would you envision they end up, 1) in their same city they were born or 2) in Malaysia as millionaires? Secondly, how come there is not the same proportion of notable women and black Ashkenazi Jews?


TBC...
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw

Last edited by PickleBottom; 03-06-2018 at 02:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 03-06-2018, 02:23 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Default

TBC...

Well, I'm back, w.r.t. Sociopaths

Sure, when you are down the rungs of the ladder and a person might do something morally questionable, like lie etc, and would not be considered a sociopath, but when we are getting to the top of the rungs and we are talking Putin, Trump, Clinton, Obama, Escobar, Jong Un etc etc...

Additionally to this, how much work/thinking are/did these "people" actually do? Personally either of us could do all of their jobs simultaneously and with our eyes closed. Do you know why? Because other people are paid to do this for them. Which then comes to my point, you will be able to be all the CEOs of every large Pharmaceutical company, and still have time to play golf seven days per week for 14-16 hours.

I think we are getting towards agreement in your last paragraph;

"I mean I'd agree with that sort of. But this goes for women, and ethnic minorities etc etc. Some people call it being 'tough' right. OK so add toughness to the list. And maybe this trait, being a degenerate thug, explains the gender split as much of not more so than structural sexism. That is, that if women were more like this they'd run more of the ftse 100 companies. It just so happens that men are more aggressive and less empathetic, which is pretty much accepted as a biological fact.

This isn't a declarative statement. It's just to illustrate how choice, behaviour, personality does play a part in income disparity. If it didn't then we wouldn't see a certain personality 'type' at the top."

Yep - just absolute thuggery, and the same will be for any person who is on the top. But as soon as you start bringing in intelligence, hard work etc and all you are doing is reinforcing a perception with no truthful basis.
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 03-06-2018, 02:25 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Always Online
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,034
Thanks: 1,330
Thanks 380
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
Sure.

But the alternative message to all to flowery wishful thinking can't be 'it doesn't matter what you do, the game is rigged and you are just a helpless automaton'.

It's a sure fire route to create a generation of nihilists in my estimation. So you're going to have to come up with framework for how one should treat life; if to accept that it's not fair.

In the absence of fairness... why play the game? The kids will need a reason.

(And the reason is that you can statistically improve your chances for success/survival by the way you think and act)
The truth is harsh, but why shy away from it? The world stands a better chance of getting better if people recognise the disease exists and work together to cure it, rather than ignoring the disease and hoping it will go away.
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
Reply

  WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > The Intellectual Table


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Give Your Kid A Pill masontrc Poetry 0 03-23-2013 06:34 AM
BOOM! Countdown to my poem collection Juilingstar177 Classifieds 0 02-29-2012 11:33 PM
Spillway Review Jay Writing Markets 0 06-04-2006 02:59 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:03 PM.

vBulletin, Copyright © 2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.